Do You Believe In Evolution Or Creationism?

Question

Why do you believe in it? Do you think it would be good or bad if the majority of Americans accepted Evolution over Creationism? Why?

Answer 1

Evolution: It is the only choice with supported evidence.

I think it should not only be accepted over creationism, but should be accepted by everyone no matter what. Evolution is essentially biological fact (yes, we have observed it in virus' and other short lifeterm biological samples), there is no debate amongst the scientific community about it, it is the mechanism (natural selection, or what have you) that is under examination. The same concepts used to breed dogs, engineer vaccines, gene therapies, etc etc... all have roots based on the "theory" of biological evolution. When combined with the fact that evolution does nothing more than explain the growth of life on earth (never concerned with its origin) you also realize that it poses no threat to creationists anyway. And to attack a theory (evolution, gravity, heliocentry, or spherical earth) because it dissagrees with an unverified and unaccountable history book is ludicrous.

Answer 2

I do not believe in either.


There is huge amounts of evidence that shows evolution to be true. It is the reality of the universe, there is no need to believe in it, any more that I have to believe that the Rocky mountains are there.

Because creationism contradicts evolution, which is a known fact, then it must be false, why should I believe in something that is false?

Short term it does not matter. The scientists that can tell reality from fiction will continue to create new drugs and treatments based on evolutionary theory. researchers will continue to refine the theory.

What it is though is a dangerous trend when millions of people insist on believing in a 4000 year old book rather than the reality of the universe that is right in front of them. This is extending to other more important aspects. When my father-in-law, who barely finished high school, can say with absolute certainty that global warming has nothing to do with mankind, when the Academy of Sciences is saying that the evidence clearly states the opposite - what can you do?

One person makes little odds, but when you have millions thinking that they are smarter than the scientists because they know that God has A Plan, and help elect a president with the same delusion - then that buggers up the entire planet.

Answer 3

Depends on what type of evolution you are talking about.
Natural selection and adaption is not proof of evolution from molecules-to-man.

Evolutionary theory accepts additions and deletions of information as evidence of evolution of a population. The problem is that through the imagined history of life on earth, the information content of the genomes of organisms must have increased dramatically. Beginning with the most primitive form of life, we have a relatively simple genome compared to the genomes that we see today. Mutations are said to provide the fuel for the evolutionary engine. Virtually all observed mutations result in a loss in the information content of a genome. There would need to be some way to consistently add information to the genome to arrive at the complex life forms we have today from a simple single-celled organism—the hypothetical common ancestor of all life on earth. Evolution requires a net gain in information over millions of years, to occur as a result of mutation and natural selection. Natural selection causes a loss of information and can only act on traits that are already present.

Darwin’s finches is an example of recombination of traits from existing genetic information not mutations.
Mutations are rare in a given gene, and the cell has elaborate machinery to correct mistakes when they occur. Mutations, when they do occur, tend to be neutral but others are harmful. In the creation model, mistakes in the DNA would be expected to have harmful effects. In evolution, these mistakes are supposed to increase information even though in over 3,000 known fruit fly mutations not one produces a fly that has a survival advantage or a new structure.

Answer 4

I am neutral here because I have never really studied either of them. I took biology in high school but my teacher was just an anti-Christian atheist and did not show much evidence for Evolution. Conversely I read some books by proponents of Intelligent Design but most of it was over my head and so I am neutral here. The problem here, though, is that most people use Evolution as a means to try to disprove the existence of the Christian God. If, instead, people used Evolution more for discovering new medicines and curing diseases you would have more support of Evolutionary teachings, but since you use it to ridicule religion you have fewer people willing to even consider it.

Same thing kind of happened before the Civil War. The Southern states were discussing how to abolish slavery gradually, but the northern states wanted it now, absolute abolition, and they encouraged slaves to rise up and kill their white masters, and many slaves did try. This put the south on the defensive, and they were unable to consider any emancipation of the slaves because the northerners wanted blood. In the same way many advocates of Evolution want "The End of Faith" and so fewer people are willing to even listen to the merits of evolution.

Answer 5

Evolution is based on actual science and have a vast amount of evidence to support it.

For your second question, I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans (very true among educated Americans) do accept evolution. I have met very few people who believe in creationism.

Answer 6

First of all, the question is a false dichotomy. There are many people who subscribe to "Intelligent Design" and not "Creationism". Intelligent Design (ID) claims that molecular phenomenon appears to be designed. It uses various scientific methods and explanatory filters to justify the conclusion. It never attempts to trace back the identity of the implied designer. In fact, the theory is supported by Agnostics as well as believers. There is no religious agenda involved. It simply maintains that it detects design and doesn't make any further claims as those step outside of the realm of science. So the question is a false dichotomy in that is presents evolution and creationism as the only alternatives as if those were the only two choices. And though they are the two most popular choices, they are not the only ones available. So I choose answer, "C"....ID.

And I only think theories are bad when people accept them a priori, when have yet to be vindicated scientifically. Let's face it, the evidence for evolution is sparse and embarrassing.

Answer 7

The majority of Americans do accept evolution.

Answer 8

Common sense favours evolution, as do most people in the Western world religious or not. If evolution is found to be false then most sciences (not just evolution) will be completely inaccurate. I was rather disturbed to find out a few years ago that most US citizens did not believe evolution happened.

If this trend in the USA continues it might have a lasting detrimental effect on the education standard of its citizens, possibly leading to a lag in development or an economic slump, but not being American I cannot speak from observation.

Answer 9

My question to zienzman is: what evidence? If anything, the archeaological evidence is against the evolutionary theory.

Charles Darwin said that the fossil record would bear him out. It's been over a century since he said that, and the fossil record has proven him wrong, if anything.

While there is evidence for microevolution(a species mutating over a series of generations to adapt to a new environment), there is no evidence for macroevolution(a species mutating over time to transition to another species).

In the fossil record there are no vertical transitional forms, which are the "missing links" in between one known species trasitioning into another known species.

So many people say that evolution is now scientific fact. If it is fact, then it would no longer be called a THEORY, but a scientific law.

Answer 10

Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" is the only sound study we have on the origins of our species. The research by no means has been static over the decades since the book was published, which is to say that we know even more now--and what we know affirms the scientific theory of evolution.